Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Many "debunkers" maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. This paper of course is entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009. I will itemize the specious "proofs" below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:

The scientists in the paper failed to realize that all the elements in the chips found were there in the building contents. There was much steel which rusts making iron oxide, aluminum from the facade. During the collapse the material was pulverized and then crushed to create the red/gray chips.

The red/gray chips found all had uniform red/gray layers and identical composition [1]. In nano-thermite, at least either the aluminum or iron oxide particles are 100 nanometers (nm) (100 billionths of a meter) or less [2]. The red layer contains plate-like aluminum components 40 nm in thickness mixed in a solidified matrix with highly uniform iron-rich rhomboid components [1]. Random mixing of building material can't create such uniform highly engineered materials.

The paper is bunk because it was published in a non-peer-reviewed vanity publication.

There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication. It is an open journal which means anyone can read the papers within it for free. Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers. Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. Some open journals only charge the fee when the paper is accepted for publication. Open journals are a superior format because they allow scientific data to be freely accessible to everyone instead of being closed off to a small minority. This journal was chosen because it is open. That means everyone on Earth can read the paper for free. Only subscribers can read articles from closed journals. Everyone else can only read abstracts. This paper needs to be read by everyone and that is exactly why it should have been published in an open journal.

There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not a peer-reviewed journal. All the evidence suggests that it is in fact a peer-reviewed journal. It looks like a peer-reviewed journal and acts like a peer-reviewed journal. Bentham, the publisher, says that it is peer-reviewed. The journal editors and the journal contributors say it is peer-reviewed. So until someone provides evidence to the contrary The Open Chemical Physics Journal is, as far as we know, a peer-reviewed journal.

Recently Philip Davis submitted a fake manuscript to another Bentham open access journal [3], The Open Information Science Journal. The paper was created by a computer program named SCIgen and contained nonsensical statements. This paper was allegedly accepted after undergoing peer review. Obviously the peer review process appears to have been conspicuously absent in this particular case. "Debunkers" of the thermite paper take this as proof that no Bentham open publications have peer-review. However, Davis also admits that a similar submission was rejected by another Bentham journal, The Open Software Engineering Journal. So clearly there is only evidence that one Bentham journal, at one time, had a problem with its peer review process. What the "debunkers" have put forth is merely a fallacious guilt by association argument, in particular they commit the hasty generalization logical fallacy [4]. In other words, there is absolutely no substance to this argument. Bentham publishes over 200 scientific journals [5]. To say all Bentham journals are not peer-reviewed because one journal at one time had a problem with the peer review process is like saying all coins are green because you found copper oxide on a penny.

The paper is bunk because its editor in chief resigned saying she was not aware it was published in her journal and that it had nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics. She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience.

The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials [6]. In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer.

Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics [7]. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles which is what the whole paper is about.

Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign?

The scientists that wrote that paper are incompetent. The chips they found were just paint chips from the heat-resistant primer coating the support beams.

According to NIST the primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc [9] but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

Every "debunker" argument leveled against the nano-thermite paper reeks of faulty reasoning and ignorance of the facts. Those that use illogical reasoning and who distort and ignore facts are not skeptics but pathological skeptics. Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science.

is that your piece or are you copying and pasting it for our viewing pleasure?

ETA:

Originally Posted by tuc0

No.

indeed lol

__________________"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

Hmm, can't seem to comment on the OpEd site. Won't bother with this thread, since we've been thru this stuff before.

Oh well. Another truther insulated from criticism...what's new?

__________________Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

I dunno. Thermite has a maximum energy content of 4.0MJ/kg. One of the chips tested had an experimental energy content almost double that.

This should lead you to believe, what?

it can't be thermite

__________________"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

I dunno. Thermite has a maximum energy content of 4.0MJ/kg. One of the chips tested had an experimental energy content almost double that.

This should lead you to believe, what?

it can't be thermite

paint isn't classified as HAZMAT for nothing lol

__________________"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology.

I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology.

According to Harrit that was how the super-nano-thermite that they compared it to was done, but I haven't seen any proof of that.

It might explain why it has twice the energy that thermite should have though

I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology.

But ... but ... but ... the researchers doing NANO-THERMITE did it in an oxidizing atmosphere as well!! Results must be comparable!! We must ignore the possibility there was another energetic component entirely, since, uh, the DSC graphs are similar ... yes they do show an exothermic reaction at a different temperature, but it also rises and ... uh ... it's been peer reviewed, so game over!!! Ha!

[/twoof]

Paraphrased actual answers that I got from various people. It's rather sad, really.

Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers.

...except for those devilishly clever folks who know how to use a library.

Quote:

Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. Some open journals only charge the fee when the paper is accepted for publication. Open journals are a superior format because they allow scientific data to be freely accessible to everyone instead of being closed off to a small minority.

...that "minority" being those evil conspirators who know how to use a library.

Quote:

This journal was chosen because it is open. That means everyone on Earth can read the paper for free. Only subscribers can read articles from closed journals. Everyone else can only read abstracts.

...unless they're one of those bastards who know how to use a library.

__________________Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

I will itemize the specious "proofs" below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:

Having addressed your carefully cherry-picked specious "proofs", which have been put forward as commentary rather than disproof by debunkers, I look forward with interest to your addressing of the gaping flaws in methodology and contradictory evidence contained in the paper itself, which are enough on their own to disprove it.

Still, I suppose it was conspiracy theorists who popularised the term "hit piece".

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles.

Jones makes up thermite scenario 4 years after 911, and now 4 years after Jones nut case statement, people think the papers done by Jones are serious efforts. A fringe few who lack the skill of basic research.

The fact is zero thermite damage was found at the WTC, zero piles of thermite product were found. The cool part is I have Jones' first paper and can see he is a liar. You failed and now push the lie based on your own failed delusions.

The paper about a fictional event, thermite being used to destroy the WTC, is pure nut case conspiracy theories to fool the weak minded who love to entertain paranoid conspiracy theories with vapor support.

I can't wait for Jones' paper on Bigfoot, or some other fantasy he has. Wait, he did publish Jesus/Christ walking in North America. Thermite and Christ. Which is his best work. I like the Christ story (pure faith) much better than his thermite work (pure lies); something to do with faith.

What temperature does thermite ignite at? Do you understand chemistry or are you taking the word of a known liar on 911 issues?

Quote:

There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication.

OOPS, they paid to have it published and it is clearly politically biased tripe based on a fantasy made up by Jones. Ask a real scientist next time you take the time to research properly a subject well beyond your capabilities.

You posted what you thought was great work and now you will be reduced to talk since you can't explain why the chips tested offered different energy levels than thermite would, some less, some more. Got chemistry?

So do you agree with Harrit that hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were used in the towers?

Harrit is a chemistry professor, not a demolitions expert. This is no debunking of his findings. Ot is "100 tons" the logic negation of "we found nanothermite". I must have a problem with the english language. I would have thought "we found no nanothermite" would be debunking. You possibly have a problem with logic. But I am here to help you.

Unfortunately this energy was not present anymore 10 minutes after impact.

But the burning contents of the building were also ten times more heat energy than thermite. ... failed again.

Paper has more energy, sugar has more energy. This is why you fail to comprehend 911, you lack physics and chemistry. You should have been a nerd instead of a conspiracy theorist grasping for the dirt dumb dribble of failed scientist and delusional nut cases to repeat freely without thinking.

I love how you dismiss 315 tons of TNT heat energy in each of the jet fuel impacts. Gee how much thermite did Jones bring to the WTC in his insane ideas? Please tell us exactly how much termite it takes!? You can't? What is the matter, you don't have the facts? Can't you do physics or chemistry?

But the burning contents of the building were also ten times more heat energy than thermite. ... failed again.

Paper has more energy, sugar has more energy. This is why you fail to comprehend 911, you lack physics and chemistry. You should have been a nerd instead of a conspiracy theorist grasping for the dirt dumb dribble of failed scientist and delusional nut cases to repeat freely without thinking.

The energy release rate of paper is somewhat slower than the rate of thermite. Try it out, light a fire with paper on the motor block of your car. Maybe the paper wll melt through it and you prove me wrong. Or do it like the history channel, put a steel beam on one point and a pile of paper, wood or anything 10 meters away and let the vast amount of heat energy do the rest.

Explosives have smaller energy densities because they contain the oxidizer, whereas paper needs air. This is also the reason why they react faster and can be more destructive.

I admit that. But my problem is the loudness of the collapses of the WTC. They might have been loud enough to conceal BOOMs after initiation. But you are right before collapse initiation.

Since, after collapse initiation, there was nothing needed to continue the collapse, there was no need to trigger hidden explosives. (and before you state that they wouldn't have continued collapsing, consult a few peer-reviewed papers by structural engineers, and maybe even one of these nifty youtube videos. Please watch the whole video, which also includes the reference to a patent explaining that the structure is not weakened below the collapse point. Once collapse is initiated, no explosives are needed. See for yourself and stop being so damn silly)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Also, in the case of WTC7, there is no question that there were no demolition explosives triggering the collapse, nor were any heard during the collapse. The complete absence of such evidence falsifies explosive CD theory in that case.
Another mechanism is the better explanation, which just happens to be the one reached by extensive engineering models. What an interesting coincidence!

Regarding nanothermite, wouldn't it have been cool if Jones, Harrit et al. had chosen (thought of) to combust the chips in the absence of oxygen?
Hmmm...they didn't do that, so their results are de facto inconclusive. Real thermite would have combusted without external O2.

And wouldn't it have been cool if they had bothered to find out what the 'organic' binder (also found in paint, btw) was?

And cool if they had bothered to discover what the gray layer was?

But they didn't do that. They were satisfied with a partial investigation, leaving several key questions unanswered. But then they went on to claim that they had 'proven' nanothermite.

Not quite. They haven't crossed that finish line yet.

__________________Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'